2008/4/11, Piotr Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I've found an issue reported already : > https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-217 > > What do you think of blocking an exchange by aggregator processor as in > delayer processor? > Processing could be continued after aggregating
So this way we don't commit transactions associated with messages unless they are aggregated? I'm not really sure if it could work, but there are people who have better experience here.Maybe we could store AsyncCallbacks in aggregator and asynchronously finish transactions when aggregator finishes aggregation. The only problem here is that many our endpoints doesn't support asynchronous invocations, so it would anyway block threads (JMS Consumers), I believe. BTW Maybe aggregator should have such a flag that requires waiting at aggregator unless things get aggregated? Roman
